Paula Bennett today confirmed that it was her office that accessed the SWIFT computer for the information released on two beneficiaries earlier this week.
Being ordered to do so by Bennett will not save the staff member from the discipline which will follow.
Doesn’t seem fair to me.
I’m a sad puppy .. I watch the Question time replay at 6pm. It’s a real laugh. Labour are lost. Stick to the issues and stop attacking people. Clark and Cullen have gone, try something new and as some have said above, you have scored enough own goals over the past month or 2 to last years. The Worth thing was appaling and setting the 2 woman up like you did was shocking. You have brought out the benefit bashers again. The Fuller wonam looks like a total loser. The other woman looks to be taking this better and is actually highlighting positive alternatives and good on her.
Its a long game Jabba and don’t believe everything you see on TV.
Good work in the House today, Trev. Not that Blinglish answered any, but you did ask the Government the questions I wanted asked.
Top marks to Charles Chauvel for persuing the breach of the Privacy Act. I remain to be convinced that talk-back filth and blog-bile can really be used to guage the mood of the people. If it can be, then that just amplifies Charles’ need to follow through. ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
From the house today I tried to use supplementaries to see where the line was drawn for Ministers and for officials ie :- 1. Would Bennett support WINZ officials leaking her personal details of the TIA she received before she abolished it.
2. Would Key support Minister of Economic Development releasing commercially confidential information held by company if that company publically disagreed with government trade support policy.
3. Would Key support Collins releasing material from Police files onj Sue Bradford when Sue opposes NACT police policy.
4. Would Key support English if English released abortion details of a woman who took a pro-abortion stance.
Answers – Bennett wouldn’t support the official.
Key would support his Ministers (or at least English acting for Key says Key would)
Sounds like you’re wasting the time of the house to be honest Trevor. Isn’t this now in the hands of the privacy commissioner by the way? It sounds like you don’t think Bennett will be found to have broken any rules so you’re attempting to try her in the house instead.
@Rat Just trying to see where the line is to be drawn so people who don’t like a particular government policy will know when their private, confidential files will be used by the government. That way they will have the choice of shutting up to protect reputation families businesses etc
Furthermore, Bennetts current income is fully open to scrutiny as is yours and other MP’s, so what’s the problem?
If you want to go comparing past benefits etc bear in mind that Benson-pope was the one who disclosed Fuller’s benefits in 2007, not any National MP.
I don’t fully support what Bennett has done but I don’t believe she has actually broken any rules/laws or even thics given the amount of information that was already put in the public arena by these women, and the fact that a reasonable estimate of their benefits could have been found from WINZ information (publically available) and their own disclosures anyway. I do feel sorry for Johnston, but tie yourselves to Fuller and you’ve got another Choudary on your hands.
Trevor I appreciate it would be helpful for everyone to have clear lines like you’re trying to establish. I also think you’re experienced enough to know the lines get blurred in all walks of life every day, and in politics more than most.
I think Labour could have scored a lot better on the TIA if you’d stuck to the outcomes rather than chosen to make the fight about individual cases (at least without a real thorough vetting – it didn’t help that Fuller had begun a thread on trademe titled ‘on the DPB?, want to make $1000/week’), she’s not the ideal poster-girl for the cause.
Rat all that might be correct – it still doesn’t mean Bennett is justified.
Again – several papers have stated that Labour did this regularly. At least Bennett had the guys to stand up and say it as opposed to slipping it to the gallery.
Re the DPB leak. Its appauling that any Minister would use personal info of one of her clients to fuel public support for her cause. I am sure it matters none to the public whether the information is leaked via their own mouth or via a Journalist. A leak is a leak. It matters none that the DPB women revealed their own personal details but is does matter that a Minister discloses personal information about anyone without their verbal permission. This sort of behaviour shows a lack of morals and integrity as well as being a breach of Trust at the very least. Unbelievable the behaviour has been supported by the Prime Minister! I hope this lack of judgement does not become a presedent for any Minister wishing to silence those that oppose changes to government policy. ‘Nievity’ is not a defense in being setup as the Governments ‘Hatchetwoman’ to make the decisions which hurt the vunerable and then be discarded! In anyones book this behaviour is appauling of a Minister.
Seriously when the left talk of morals, trust, and the support of the PM it makes me laugh – please think back to Winston and the total backing he received from clark.
I find it more disgusting that labour have used her (and bruce burgess) as poster children whilst deliberately withholding information to mislead the public.
So I applaud Bennett for having the courage to stand up and say – hey – lets put ALL the cards on the table!
Labour and Sue Bradford – A stand on Principal in this instance essential and great to see. Thanks to Charles Chauvel,Sue Bradford,Mallard,King,Dalziel as Bennett’s behaviour is not to be tollerated in a democratic society. Its my understanding that if there is somehow a fault in what these DPB folk get that is the fault of WINZ Office for not adhereing to the strict formulas for eligability and not the women themselves? These DPB folk probably have high health costs, child dental correction bills, disabled children or live in a region where there are high accomodation costs or have high legal aid costs to pay back when they defended themselves and their children against violence – who knows, but some ‘benefit of the doubt’ might be in order as their contribution to society is in keeping their families well fed, clean, warm, out of trouble and safe so that the children can grow up healthy and good members of society. These are not the women who abuse their children (hang them on washing lines or put them in dryers or stab them with cigarette butts! Lets not pretend that financial help is only available to some it is available to ALL society (students, working folk etc etc) via WINZ if they meet the criteria. Criteria is set by the Government / National / Bennett! So why are “a few” quick to bag these DPB women? Bennett has been very selective and deceptive in what she has disclosed. All Power to Labour and Ms Bradford and those that stand for good morals and Integrity in our society.
Bikerkiwi, do ‘ALL the cards on the table’ include the secret papers behind the axing of the ACE funding? Nah, thought not.
no – it dosn’t include the secret papers containing the hiding place of Elvis either.
bikerkiwi engage brain
most others recently – thanks – it is important to stand up for what is fair rather than use talkback radio as the standard setter for ethics.
Just a few things that bug me in the comments!
Wonder why the Minister- Ms Bennett has been able to inflate the “benefit bashes cause” by being illusive in her details about actual benefit amounts? She discloses someone could get $1000.00 per week? Actually 99.9% of DPB beneficiaries do not get anywhere near this amount and would not be eligible?
What is the ‘Government support’ the Minister states she has initiated to aid DPB folk into work instead of the T.I.A? She mentions “on-the-job-training”,
“job-preparation”,”industry-partnerships”,”funding-for-self employed” and “enterprise-allowances” how do these schemes aid DPB beneficiaries return to work and how do they replace the T.I.A?
Ms Bennett states “she will back DPB beneficiaries to get off the DPB” – HOW does she propose to do this now they can’t do this themselves? (could she explain ‘she will back’)? The T.I.A was a financial suppliment to aid with study costs, if the T.I.A is gone any amount of hollow words and catch phrases will just not do it!
The Minister discloses a maximum accomodation allowance of $220.00 is available to help instead of T.I.A – I understand accomodation allowance is for accomodation if one meets the criteria. It is not available as a training suppliment as was the T.I.A therfore it is not a replacement! The max accomodation allowance the Minister states is $220.00/week but she failed to say it is only available in a tiny geographic region of NZ where accomodation rents are highest and there is possibly ‘a couple of people natiowide’ (I hazard a guess) that would be eligible, as DPB beneficiaries are expected to live in ordinary /reasonable / avg accomodation, not a mansion!
Benefits are worked out by strict criteria and formula, there are checks and balances throughout WINZ, so whatever a DPB beneficiary gets must meet the criteria and who monitors and sets the criteria the Government-National-WINZ-Bennett!
Very good questions – I wonder whether Tim and Nat team seem to have lost their enthusiasm for defending Paula. Maybe they have realised they can’t.